System Recall

Leading for Equity and Excellence in Education

Alma Harris, Michelle S. Jones

• Publisher: Corwin
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781544342245
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Pedagogía
• Subtopic: Liderazgo en educación

The book focuses on what we know about contemporary educational improvement, transformation, and change. It will provide insights into what strategies work, long term, to build the capacity for principled change at the school and system level.

The book will consider what leaders can do to secure principled school and system improvement which fully embraces diversity, equity, and equality. It will also dispel some myths about reform at scale and challenge some prevailing ideas about educational change that, it will be posited, are not helping many young people to reach their potential.

Chapter 1 Inequality and Inequity

An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics.

Plutarch, 46–120 CE

Inequality in education is not a new phenomenon. It is well established that unequal societies create damage not only to the poorest in society but to the whole population. Ichiro Kawachi (n.d.), a professor of social epidemiology at Harvard, has called inequality “a social pollutant” that affects mental health, physical well-being, and educational opportunities. His research work focuses on the negative effects of inequality on the health of certain groups and individual stress levels. His work highlights the detrimental effects of poverty on health and well-being, with the associated implications for unequal educational progress.

In 2018, a report on the state of education in England (Polianskaya, 2018) concluded that education reforms were causing greater inequality, with fewer children from less-well-off backgrounds attending higher-rated schools. The authors found that the education system in England was growing more inequitable:

At present we see a system of winners and losers, with increasing incoherence and a loss of equity as a result. While higher status schools seemed to be benefiting from [education] policies, schools on the other end of the spectrum were facing more challenges, the study found, such as being undersubscribed and having “disproportionate numbers of disadvantaged, migrant and hard-to-place children.”

Tackling inequity means addressing its bedfellow, inequality. Inequity and inequality are distinctive but potent influences that negatively affect levels of educational achievement and attainment. Global Health Europe (2009) explains the distinction:

Inequity and inequality: these terms are sometimes confused, but are not interchangeable, inequity refers to unfair, avoidable differences arising from poor governance, corruption or cultural exclusion while inequality simply refers to the uneven distribution of health or health resources as a result of genetic or other factors or the lack of resources.

Social inequities are essentially disparities in power and wealth, often accompanied by discrimination or social exclusion. Inequity is a lack of justice, a sense of deep unfairness that goes beyond unequal resourcing and falls into discrimination, prejudice, or the exclusion of certain (often minority) groups. Sometimes inequities can lead to—and can cause—inequalities. Inequality and inequity are powerfully related and intertwined.

In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights listed free quality primary education as a right. The 1960 United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention Against Discrimination in Education reinforced the right to a quality primary education. The Convention on the Rights of the Child states that all children should have equal access to a quality education. The Convention stipulates that children should receive an education that allows them to be the best they can be so they can reach their full potential. The United Nations Millennium Development Goals reinforce free universal primary education as a right.

The Sustainability Development Goals 2015–2030 (Goal 2, n.d.) state that the most important priorities are to

1. end poverty in all its forms everywhere;
2. end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture;
3. ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages;
4. ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all; and
5. achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.

Despite all these important declarations and intentions, there are still children around the world who do not receive a free primary education. There are still schools that are not adequately resourced in both developed and developing countries. There are still schools in which children are learning in makeshift structures or buildings that are dangerous or unfit for this purpose. There are still classrooms that don’t have a teacher and there are still children not able to go to school because of family circumstances. In summary, in the 21st century, inequality remains a prevalent and persistent block to the educational success of the poorest children in the poorest countries.

Tackling inequality in education therefore is fundamentally concerned with addressing unequal access to high-quality education in the shape of better schools and a critical imbalance in the allocation of educational resources. This unequal playing field can be leveled, but only through the redistribution of wealth and the specific targeting of extra resources to select groups of students.

Many education systems are actively trying to tackle inequalities through a process of resource redistribution that is fairer and more equal to all. Essentially, there are policy imperatives in place to ensure that more resources follow young people who are most in need. For example, the Scottish government has allocated £120 million to Pupil Equity Funding to tackle this attainment gap (https://www.gov.scot/policies/schools/pupil-attainment/).

Research undertaken by the Sutton Trust (Jerrim, 2017) found that 15-year-olds from poorer families in Scotland were found to be roughly 2–3 years behind their better-off peers in science, math, and reading. Consequently, Pupil Equity Funding is being provided as part of the £750 million Attainment Challenge Fund allocated to tackle the underachievement resulting from poverty. Pupil Equity Funding is allocated directly to schools and targeted at closing the poverty-related attainment gap.

Every council area in Scotland benefits from Pupil Equity Funding, and 95% of schools in Scotland have been allocated funding for pupils known to be eligible for free school meals. Funding is spent at the discretion of the head teacher working in partnership with others and the local authority. There is evidence (Scottish Government, 2018) that local authorities are using the additional money they receive as part of the Attainment Challenge to focus much more specifically on resourcing and supporting young people who are most in need.

The poverty-related attainment gap is common in many other developed countries. For example, in Australia, the high-profile Gonski Review (Parliament of Australia, n.d.) identified gaps in the educational outcomes of poorer Australian students. The review found that over the past decade, the performance of Australian students had declined at all levels of achievement outlined in international benchmarks. Furthermore, a significant proportion of Australia’s lowest-performing students were found not to be meeting minimum standards of achievement. In short, the review found that Australia has a significant gap between its highest- and lowest-performing students, far greater than in many Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries.

Gonski underlined the need for a more equitable school funding system, one that ensures that differences in educational outcomes are not the result of differences in wealth, income, power, or possessions. To address the current imbalances, it recommended a national needs-based and sector-blind school funding model.

The impact of this extra resource has been significant. Two principals explain the importance of extra funding.

Lithgow High School is a comprehensive high school with a concentration of disadvantaged students (more than 80% in the bottom two quartiles). It strives to provide outstanding “opportunities for everyone.”

In 2014, the school received needs-based funding of 1.3 million dollars. The funding has been used to create access to resources for students that their more-privileged peers have been provided with by their parents/families. These include access to large software programs such as Mathletics, ClickView, Wheelers online library, Accelerated Reader, and online tuition for senior students. The latter was accessed voluntarily more than 11,029 times by students in 2018. In addition, there is a comprehensive wraparound well-being framework, including an onsite well-being center that provides students with access to specialist support services. In 2018, more than 800 sessions were delivered.

The impact of this extra resource has contributed to the creation of a positive and caring culture and growing motivation and confidence in students so that they can be successful. There has also been a positive impact on achievement in the Higher School Certificate (HSC) bands and a parallel drop in Band 3 results of 50%. Students receiving first-round university offers have increased by more than 50% in 2018.

Ann Caro

Principal

Lithgow High School

Merrylands East Public School is located in the southwestern part of Sydney and serves a culturally diverse community of 370 students from 40 different language backgrounds. About 10% of students have refugee experiences (mainly from Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq), and 60 students have been identified as having a disability.

Merrylands East Public School uses the flexible Gonski funding to address the literacy and numeracy needs of students by engaging a specialist and former high school math teacher to assist Stage 3 (Years 5 and 6) students and specialist early intervention literacy teachers with programs such as Reading Recovery, Early Action for Success, and Play-Based Learning.

While Merrylands East does not focus on National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN), the school has consistently been acknowledged by the Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority (ACARA) as achieving high growth and added value for their students.

John Goh

@johnqgoh

Principal/Primary Principals Forum Spokesperson

Merrylands East Public School

These school examples underline the importance of extra resources (carefully spent) in maximizing learning for students who are at a disadvantage in order to raise aspirations and attainment for all. As highlighted earlier, inequality and inequity are difficult to tackle, and while extra resources are critically important, this remains only part of all the solution.

Inequity

Inequality, like inequity, is hardwired into the DNA of many countries and is reflected and reinforced in their education systems. Inequity is notoriously difficult to disturb or disrupt. As Chapter 3 outlines, the hard truths about structural barriers make inequity difficult to uproot. Challenging inequity, therefore, requires more than the reallocation or redistribution of resources. It necessitates dismantling the structural barriers that serve to exacerbate and perpetuate inequity.

This does not mean, or indeed suggest, that educators are not doing their best to tackle inequity wherever they find it. The reverse is true. Rather, it is to propose that all those efforts would be far more effective and impactful within an education system that was premised firmly upon equity in the first place.

In Finland, enhancing equity has been the driving principle in its education system since the 1970s (Sahlberg, 2018). While Finland has become the automatic go-to example of everything that seems good in education, long before the arrival of the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), the Finnish education system reflected both excellence and equity. UNESCO global education monitoring report data show that in Finland, the attainment gap between rich and poor is marginal. In addition, 0% of the population in Finland earn less than 1.9 dollars a day. As the Finnish educator Pasi Sahlberg (2018) outlines, “Finland cannot afford to leave any child behind. We know from our own statistics that more equitable education is also cost-beneficial in the long run” (p. 54).

Finland does not engage in competition, merit-based pay, or privatization—features so predominantly displayed in the educational landscape of many other systems within developed and developing countries. Finnish schools serve all children equally. A high-performing school in Finland is one where all students perform beyond expectations, which may mean different things for different students. The education system in Finland reflects certain societal norms and democratic values that support and value educational equity.

In the Netherlands (Jones et al., 2017), there also exists a strong cultural disposition toward equity, reflected throughout its society and its educational system. There is strong local control of education, and municipalities enact democratic decision making. In many ways, the Netherlands is an example of educational equity and excellence, even though it has far less press exposure than Finland. Like Finland, however, not one of its 17.1 million population earns less than 1.9 dollars an hour.

Canada offers another strong example of equity and excellence. Learners in Canada are far ahead of their geographic neighbors in the United States in terms of equity and excellence. Canada has the world’s highest proportion of working-age adults who have been through higher education—55%, compared with an average of 35% in OECD countries. Canada also has a high level of migrants in its school population.

More than a third of young adults in Canada are from families where their parents are from another country. Yet the children of newly arrived, migrant families seem to integrate rapidly enough to perform at the same high level as their classmates. The equity gap in Canada is far narrower than in most other developed countries. Despite the different policies in individual provinces, there is a common commitment to an equal chance in school, which makes Canada (like Finland) a system that invests in equity in order to achieve excellence.

In summary, it is not one thing that explains the equitable approach of the Netherlands, Canada, or Finland; it’s a system thing. The entire system in each of these countries is premised upon equity. Other countries interested in better performance might be advised to think about how far their system is equitable and whether this is most important.

What Is Most Important?

Children have one chance to flourish, to develop their talents, and to realize their true potential. There are no second chances, no reruns, no repeats. If inequity exists in any system, then it disenfranchises and deliberately excludes some young people and not others. The net result is the reinforcement that some children are expected to succeed and others are routinely expected to fail.

Yet, for many children, the odds are steadily stacked against them because of the powerful forces of disadvantage that are beyond their control. These forces result in major differences in the access to and the quality of the education that these young people receive. In this way, inequity is an invasive part of their educational experience, operating in punitive and powerful ways.

Not only are certain young people valued in some education systems far more than others but they are also rewarded differently. Apart from the inherent moral and ethical considerations, the social and economic consequences are also stark, as countless young people are destined to be educationally, economically, and socially abandoned.

The performance gap between the richest and the poorest has remained persistently large between the mid-1980s and the mid-2000s, with no significant improvement. Comparing the performance of 11-year-olds born in 2000 with those born in 1970 reveals that the geographic area a child comes from has become a more powerful predictive factor for those born in 2000 compared to 1970 (Clegg, Allen, Fernandes, Freedman, & Kinnock, 2017, p. 6).

A recent OECD (2018) report notes that no country in the world can claim that it has totally eradicated all forms of inequality and inequity, not even Finland. There is no educational system that can claim that, either. The forces of poverty and disadvantage, however small, still work against a fair, just, and equal experience of schooling. Overlay this with the impact of race, gender, class, and socioeconomic status differences, and the possibility of equitable education seems like a distant dream.

The main messages from research are crystal clear: Structural inequalities in society lead to unequal access and outcomes; therefore, recalibrating funding, resources, and action to support children in various levels of disadvantage is not only important but is imperative if social justice is the core aim. Young people who are disenfranchised and disconnected are often the most vulnerable in society and are in need of support, care, and nurturing within a supportive school and community environment. They do not need another punitive behavior policy (Roberts, 2019) or an intervention aimed at developing their resilience or grit to succeed (Bazelais et al., 2018). These young people are not the problem.

The wealth divide is growing, and with it, the gap between the educational attainment of those at the top and bottom of society. While there is a strong commitment from many governments to greater educational equality and equity, the evidence about social mobility would suggest that the stubborn patterns of inequity within societies prevail and pers...